I looked at the cr issues list
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html
Which has the following for the resolution of cr04
cr4 The utility of the anonymous address in SOAP binding specification
is too restrictive soap - design - closed
Description
OASIS WS-RX tc needs to utilize the semantics of the anonymous URI as
defined by the WS-Addressing specification as the address of other EPRs
that it defines, in particular as the value of wsrm:AcksTo EPR defined
in the WS-ReliableMessaging specification[1]. OASIS WS-RX tc noticed
that WS-Addressing SOAP binding specification defines the semantics of
the anonymous URI we need, but only wrt the ReplyTo and FaultTo EPRs in
Section 3.5.
Origin
Ümit Yalçınalp (source)
Proposal 12005-09-26
The paragraph in question should be extended to allow other EPRs to use
the same semantics defined for the anonymous address
Resolution2005-09-29 accepted by originator
"the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR" -> "an EPR", "..provides such a channel
*for response messages.*"
----
The minutes citation points at the following resolution:
--
CR Issue: Anonymous Address Utility
umit: Loosening definition to include EPRs from other specifications.
The issue is in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Sep/0035.html
anish: Change the semantics to say "The anonymous URI references back
channel for any binding"
glen: Two changes: "Replace ReplyTo or Faulto with "an"
glen: Add "for response messages" at the end of sentence beginning with
"Any underlying protoco..."
RESOLUTION: Change to: "When
"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as the
address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the underlying
SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified endpoint. Any
underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP request-response message
exchange pattern provides such a channel for response messages. For
instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the
reply message in the HTTP response."
--
I note that these minutes do not state that proposal 1 text was approved
by the WG.
namely
Proposal 12005-09-26
The paragraph in question should be extended to allow other EPRs to use
the same semantics defined for the anonymous address
Am I missing some other discussion which added the text proposed by
proposal 1?
Tom Rutt